Why are American Cars so BIG?

[mr bill]

dbl post

[mr bill]

Enough of this bullshit.

*You* go read Hart, AJP Taylor, Shirer, et all, then we'll talk. I read your godammed links the first time. I can assure you that I'm not assuming a single godammed thing. Listen to me now:

Every single historian I have read has confirmed this, countless times over, and I am willing to consider it a fact based on the simple volume of agreement between experts- the battle's between fighters were the battles that determined the Battle of Britian. I *know* you must know this since its so ****ing obivious- but in case you don't I'll spell it out for you:

German fighter/bomber formation flies to Britian, British fighters down German fighters and then down German bombers- if German fighters are not shot down, German bombers bomb their targets (albeit with other factors involed, ie, AA, small arms, etc)

You follow so far?

Ok, now, *if* you remove the German fighters, then there's nothing to stop the British planes from downing the German Bombers.

THERFORE: the battles were only of importance if they involved both German and British fighters.

Clear?

[werty]

^ what the?

i haven't read this entire thread, but where did it chnage from big USA cars to european fighter planes

thats crazy

[crisis]

Enough of this bullshit.

*You* go read Hart, AJP Taylor, Shirer, et all, then we'll talk. I read your godammed links the first time. I can assure you that I'm not assuming a single godammed thing. Listen to me now:

Every single historian I have read has confirmed this, countless times over, and I am willing to consider it a fact based on the simple volume of agreement between experts- the battle's between fighters were the battles that determined the Battle of Britian. I *know* you must know this since its so ****ing obivious- but in case you don't I'll spell it out for you:

German fighter/bomber formation flies to Britian, British fighters down German fighters and then down German bombers- if German fighters are not shot down, German bombers bomb their targets (albeit with other factors involed, ie, AA, small arms, etc)

You follow so far?

Ok, now, *if* you remove the German fighters, then there's nothing to stop the British planes from downing the German Bombers.

THERFORE: the battles were only of importance if they involved both German and British fighters.

Clear?

The primary goal was to prevent bombers reaching their targets. Bombers are easier targets. The RAF used different tactics culmintaing in the big wing where through use of radar they targetted as early as possible the Luftwaffe formations with as many aircraft as possible. In the end it was as much about breaking up the formations as shooting down planes. You initially said that the BoB wasnt important because the Germans could never have won. Strategic errors on Hitlers part contributed to Germanys failure in this conflict as much as anything else. Had Hitler concentrated on aircraft factories and airfields with the large number of bombers at his disposal the outcome could have been different.

[Egg Nog]

Do you realize that the U.S. has had a part in or by herself liberated more people than any other country in the world?

Of course they have, according to them. The US, dozens of times, has helped leaders get overthrown in favour of their own national interests. It's been happening since the late forties, with some example countires like Laos, Honduras, Haiti, Liberia, Chad, Grenada, Fiji, Cambodia, Venezuela, and many others. Many supported coups have been in favour of governments that will allow easier US access to resources and labour.

Do you realize that the U.S. gives far more in aid to other countries than any other country in the world?

Do you realize that the economic pressure that the US has put on the world's underdeveloped countries is one of the major reasons why they've gotten stuck in their situations in the first place? The aid provided by the US does not come anywhere near close to offsetting the economic stress and dependence that they've influenced. And besides, it would only be expected that the US provides more aid than any other country. The US has the world's largest economy, by a longshot.

Here's a quote from a site looking at the United Nations agreements for rich countires to provide international aid:

"USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last three years, their dollar amount has been the highest."

Do you realize that the U.S. accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world.

The US is the most economically successful country in the world, and the average income there is larger than anywhere else. They are the the flagship of the developed world. It only seems natural that this would be the case.

How about some praise for the U.S., instead of making ridiculous statements like "the U.S.A. has supported terrorism in the past."

That's not a ridiculous statement at all. Especially in Central America and Southeast Asia, the US has given weapons and finanical support that have killed hundreds of thousands of people in crimes of humanity. The US has also directly killed many hundreds of thousands more. This is the truth. You want some examples? What about the carpet bombing of Cambodia, and support of the Khmer Rouge, which eventually lead to millions of dead civilians? What about sending Indonesia all of the weapons that they needed to complete the East Timor Genocide, which resulted in the death of 200,000? What about the support and arming of the Nicaragua's government illegally put in place by the USA so that over 80,000 dissidents could be killed off, or the Arming and support of Guatemala's government death squads that killed nearly 300,000 people over the course of two decades, right into the late '90s? What about arming and supporting the rebels in Angola between 1974 and 1992, when they killed 650,000? What about the CIA-sponsored terrorism in Lebanon in the mid-80s that killed thousands? What about the training and financial backing for El Salvador's government death squads, which killed nearly 80,000? What about arming and financially supporting the Turkish regime that killed over 27,000 Kurds and dissidents in the mid-90s? What about the My Lai massacre? What about support for urban bombers in Italy during in 1980? What about carpet bombing the civilians of Vietnam and Laos in the '60s and '70s, resulting in over 2.5 million deaths?

As I said earlier, I'm here to offer a different side to the story, and that's why I'm choosing not to praise the US. I've enjoyed every time I've visited the US (except one when I went for a funeral), and I think that Americans as people are kind and welcoming. However, there's already lots of praise out there, and not enough is known about the gloomier apects of the US, especially historically. What I personally not like is the US government's foreign, humanitarian, and environmental policy. I like the US as a country, and they have done many great things for the world. I just want to make sure you see both sides of the picture.

[mr bill]

Had Hitler concentrated on aircraft factories and airfields with the large number of bombers at his disposal the outcome could have been different.

This is my point- no it wouldn't have, since no matter how many bombers the Germans put into the air, or could have put into the air, they simply did not have enough fighters to defend them.

[crisis]

This is my point- no it wouldn't have, since no matter how many bombers the Germans put into the air, or could have put into the air, they simply did not have enough fighters to defend them.

Yes he would because the RAF wouldnt have had any to defend themselves with. The US airforce and RAF bombed Germany without any escort over many targets and accepted large losses to achieve their outcomes.

[andy.muc]

Hey guys. Relax. This is a forum about cars. Whats Hitler doin' in here?
Post some pics of his Maybach or something but don't discuss the outcome of WWII.

[brum]

i was doing some reading and thinking bout the american market, that has been protected all these years by import taxes on cars. this has left the American market behind on innovation etc. The GM factories being so old they cant build fast enough but they cant be closed down because the government has protected the workers. This leaving them to look to countries such as Austrlia (Holden) to manufacture cars for them.
What do you think? Am i just going on with a load of nothing?

[Coventrysucks]

Godwin's law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Whoever mentioned Hitler first automatically lost the argument.

[brum]

looks like thats the end of this thread

[Egg Nog]

looks like thats the end of this thread

What happened to Fleet 500, Mr.Bill et al?

[PsychoChimp22]

PickUps are practical tools. The bigger they are, the more you can hold in the back, and the bigger the engine, the more you can toe. It's really that simple.

[PsychoChimp22]

I feel like a jackass........ Thats what cha get for not reading before posting!!!

[crimefighter196]

State our opinion and whatever your country thinks of Americas love affair with large pick-ups etc.

My dad is 6feet tall , in fact my entire family line is at least close to 6.

I'm only 5'9 and I have the darnest time to squeeze in a corolla.

We also work almost all the time,, when you work you need your tools of the trade.

Just workaholics, call it inefficient, call it crazy,, but bottom line we kind of like it that way ..

In my case I drive a 4 door Truck,, I carpool people around,, if it was not for my truck, there would be 3 other vehicles out there.

Boy my V8 is more fuel efficient than 3 corollas :-)

plus GAS is soo darn cheap compared to everybody else in the world.

I do know there are Euro. Imports that are smaller and yet could be fuel inefficient. How about those V12 Mercedeses aye ?? The V8 Land Rover ,,